Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
From Khachigian to Strachen RE: attached series of questions for Muskie. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/14/1972
Meet the Press questions for Senator Muskie. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 1/11/1972
Suggested items for Klein and Face the Nation. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 1/7/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26146448
label
WHSF: Contested, 47-32
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26146448
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 47-32
description
This file contains:
From Khachigian to Strachen RE: attached series of questions for Muskie. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/14/1972
Meet the Press questions for Senator Muskie. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 1/11/1972
Suggested items for Klein and Face the Nation. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 1/7/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26146448
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
4a717953275681fe
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
47
32
1/14/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Khachigian to Strachen RE: attached
series of questions for Muskie. 4 pgs.
47
32
1/11/1972
Campaign
Other Document
Meet the Press questions for Senator Muskie.
6 pgs.
47
32
1/7/1972
Campaign
Other Document
Suggested items for Klein and Face the
Nation. 6 pgs.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD [NIXON PROJECT]
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS
DATE
RESTRICTION
NUMBER
TYPE
N-1
memo
chachigian to Strachan, re,
1/14/72
[Doc 113]
Questions for muskie, with
C (ning)
[Doc 205]
attached dept copy also addrown
[Doc 114]
["auached to cover slips, Questions
[Doc 115]
Can be found
]
attachments
1) memo, Anyden for Khashyian,
re: Questions for meet The
press, "1/17/72
2) memo, Buchaven
re: mushie's "Aneet the
Russ appearance, 1/18/72
N-2
menic
Khooligian to cole, II maTRE
1/13/72
C (nifor)
[Doc 116]
study, with attached draft
copy
N-3
Report
Questions for Senator mustic-
1/11/72
C (oripan)
[Doc 117]
meet The Press 1/16/72, with
attached droft copy
N-4
Report
By Khochigian re: H. 2. Klcin -
1/7/72
[Doc 118]
Face the nation sug gested
items, with attached diaftcopy
N-5
mens
Khachy in ctc woods, re:
1/5/77
( (quif)
[Doc 119]
Inscription card
[Doc 206]
FILE GROUP TITLE
BOX NUMBER
5
FOLDER TITLE
January [1972]
RESTRICTION CODES
A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy.
E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
B. National security classified information.
financial information.
C. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual's
F. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law
rights.
enforcement purposes.
D. Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy
G. Withdrawn and return private and personal material.
or a libel of a living person.
H. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
NA FORM 1421 (4-85)
Presidential Materials Review Board
Review on Contested Documents
Collection: Kenneth L. Khachigian
Box Number:
5
Folder:
January [1972]
Document
Disposition
113
Return Private/Political
114
Return
Private/Political
115
Return
Private/Political
116
Retain
Open
117
Return
Private/Political
118
Return
Private/Political
119
Retain
Open
205
Return
Private/Political
206
Retain
Open
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Questions can be found
in Chron File 1/11/71
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DETERMINED TO BE AN
January 14, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
By
Ry
NARS, Date 2-2-81
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR GORDON STRACHAN
FROM: KENNETH L. KHACHIGIAN ib
Attached are a series of questions for Ed Muskie. They
have been given to A1 Snyder who will deliver them to Spivak
for Muskie's performance on Meet the Press this Sunday, the 16th.
I'll let you know if we struck home with any of them.
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
1/14/72
By
E.O. RX 12065, Section 6-102
CONF IDENTIAL
NARS, Date 2-2-81
MEMORANDUM FOR GORDON STRACHAN
FROM: KENNETH L. KHACHIGIAN
Ataached are a series of questions for Ed Muskie.
They have hashx been given to Al Sayax Snyder who will
deliver them to Spivak for Muskie's performance on
Meet the Press this Sunday, the 16th.
I'll let you know if we struck home with any of
them.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 17, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
KEN KHACHIGIAN
FROM:
ALVIN SNYDER #
As requested, I passed on your questions to the Meet the
Press program which grilled Muskie pretty well. You may
have noticed several of your points in there, including the
busing issue and the defense budget, which were real zingers.
bcc:
VKK4 &
THE WHITE HOUSE
AL S ryder
WASHINGTON
January 18, 1972
MEMORANDUM TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
PAT BUCHANAN
The powers that be should know that both Ken Khachigian and
Al Snyder worked hand-in-glove to develop and transmit
some of the questions that eventually were used by interviewers
Broder, Kiker, Novak and Apple on that "Meet the Press" show
which was perhaps the roughest going-over I have ever seen
Ed Muskie given. At one point Muskie seemed on the verge of
"blowing." Recommend that those in the White House staff who
have political responsibilities take a look at that show -- to see
where Muskie's vulnerability lies, and to get a good look at the
fellow who has been shaping up as our primary opponent.
Incidentally, re my previous memoranda, I remain convinced
that Muskie can be had in Florida and must be had there, if he
is to be stopped. Is any consideration being given to some of
the ideas outlined in those memos?
Buchanan
1-11-72
Questions for Senator Muskie - - Meet the Press - 1/16/72
Senator: If your opposition to President Nixon's announced
"Space Shuttle" program prevailed, 50, 000 jobs would eventually
be lost by aerospace workers in Florida, California, Texas and
other states. What will you tell Floridians about your willingness
to put them out of work?
Senator: you have voted against the ABM; you have voted to
cut appropriations for the advanced strategic manned bomber program;
you voted to remove American troops from Vietnam by December, 1971;
you voted to cut the Defense budget by $6 billion; you voted to cut off
funds for American troops in Indochina after June 1, 1972; and you
voted to terminate the F-14 jet program. In light of these votes,
how could you ever maintain that you are in favor of a strong national
defense?
Senator Muskie: Your children attend private schools in
Washington, D.C. Why have you endorsed forced busing to achieve
racial balance for people whose children cannot attend private
schools as yours do?
Senator Muskie: You criticized the Nixon Administration for
not being open; for not being credible and asked more access to
government documents. Since you are an elected member of our
government, will you grant reporters access to your files in the
"public interest" including minutes of private and confidential
meetings you have held?
Page 2
Senator: Mr. McGovern has flatly said he would give amnesty
for all Vietnam draft dodgers. Why have you failed to characterize
fully your own views on this issue?
Can you answer yes or no to this statement? If Edmund Muskie
were President, he would fire J. Edgar Hoover.
Senator: Explain why a black man should vote for you when
the same man has been summarily rejected by you as a vice-
presidential runningmate?
Senator: Have you done anything to save parochial schools
from extinction?
Senator: You have advocated federal intervention to force
suburbs to integrate. Why?
Senator: How many Blacks, Chicanos, and women do you have
on your Senate and campaign staffs respectively?
Senator: Gene McCarthy has characterized your change of
mind on Vietnam as somewhat hypocritical. How do you account
for the fact that you changed your mind on Vietnam only after a
Republican administration came into office and especially in light of
your strong and vigorous support of the Vietnam buildup in the
Johnson years?
Senator: Why have you consistently avoided support of strong
gun control legislation?
Page 3
Senator: Do you endorse last week's federal CO : decision
requiring the merger of the Richmond, Virginia pub. school
system with the school systems of its suburban count es to end
segregation?
1/11/72
Questions for Senator Muskie
:
Meet the Press
-
16/72
Senater
If your opposition to
President Nixon's announced "Space
Shuttle"
program
prevailed,
50,000 jobs
would eventually be lost by aerospace workers in Florida,
California, Texas and other
states.
What will you
willingness
tell Floridians about your
to put them out
of work?
Senator, you have voted against the ABM; you have voted
to cut appropriations for the advanced strategic
manned
bomber program; you
voted to remove American troops
by Decmeber, 1971;
from Vietnam
you voted to cut the
Defense
budget by
billion
;
you voted
to cut off funds for American troops in Indochina after
June 1, 1972; and you voted to term nate the F-14 jet program.
In light of these votes, how
could you ever
maintain/hat
you are in favor of a strong national defense?
Senator Muskie: Your
children attend private schools
in Washington,
D.C.
Why
have you endorsed forced busing
to achieve racial balance for people whose
children
cannot attend private
schools as your S do?
Senator Muskie: You criticized the Nixon Administration
for not being open; for
not being credible and asked more
access to government documents. Since you are
member of
our government, will you grant reporters access to your files
page 2
in the "public interest including minutes of private and
confidential meetings you have held?
Senator: Mr. McGovern has flatly said
he would give
amnesty for all Vietnam draft dodgers. Why have you failed
to fully
characterize your own views on this issue?
Can you answer
yes or no
to this
Istatement
if
Edmund Muskie were President, he would fire J. Edgar Hoove
Senator: Explain why a black man should vote for you
when the same man
has been
summarily rejected by
ial runningmate?
you as a Vice-President
save
Senator: Have you done anything to
parochial
from extinction ?
schools to die in the vast numbers that they MRK have!
Senator:
You have advocated federal intervention to
force suburbs to integrate. Why?
Sanator: How many Blacks, Chicanos, and women do you
have on your Seaate and campaign staffs respectively?
Sneator: Gene McCarthy has characterized your change
of mind on Vietnam as
somewhat hypocritical
How
do you account for the fact that you
changed your mind
on Vietnam only Laster a Republisan administration came into office
and especially in light of your strong and vigorous support
of the Vietnam buildup in the Johnson years?
Senater: why have you consistently avoided
support of story gien control legislation?
Senator: Do you endorse
last week's federal court decision
Virginia
requiring the merger of the Richmond public school S 1 y ) y stem with
the school systems of its suburban coutnies to end segeegation?
Khachigia
1/7/72
H.G. KLEIN -- Face the Nation -- Suggested Items
Obvious discussion will arise on the merits of th President's
opposition in the campaign year. I suggest some of the following
points be made:
- - An effort should be made to exacerbate Democratic
differences. Gene McCarthy has severely criticized Ed Muskie
for his strong support of the Vietnam war in 1968. McGovern has
challenged Muskie to statewide debates in New Hampshire and has
attacked consistently that Muskie is not liberal enough. Jackson
thinks all the other Dems are too far on the Left -- he strongly
opposes bussing and wants a stronger military as well as being
strong on law and order. Making these points and other might
help to bring to the public eye the squabbling among the Dems.
-- An impression should be conveyed of the Democrats in
totaly disarray -- a party who has no true leader and thus has
so many presidential candidates as to make their party's leader- -
ship seem ludicrous. Portray the Democratic party as bankrupt
of ideas as well as leadership; of not saying anything positive, but
only attacking the President; of having not much vision but a great
deal of partisanship. If they can't run their party, how can they
run their country?
Page 2
-- I would puff up Humphrey. You probably will e asked
who the White House thinks is the most likely Dem C didate.
Obviously, HHH would be our best opponent. He should be
praised as a great Dem party leader one who has labored in the
vineyards. Offer the opinion that Humphrey is a strong leader and
would again be a strong opponent. This should obviously be done
in a way which doesn't amount to an endorsement of HHH, but rather
an observation that HHH is much better than the rest and much
stronger politically than the press portrays him to be.
- - On the Anderson Papers, the question will be raised of
credibility, and I think this ought to be turned right around and
thrown back at the Dems. E. g., Muskie and others have been
raising the questions of RN's credibility. I would say: "Talk about
credibility; Ed Muskie, Hubert Humphrey and the other Democrats
were silent when Lyndon Johnson took us into war -- they relished in their
portrayals of Barry Goldwater as bomb-happy. Their silence while
Lyndon Johnson escalated the war is well known. Yet now they are
unanimous in their desire to cut and run. I would think that there is
a problem of credibility when candidates change their positions for
such obviously political purposes as the Democrats have done on
Vietnam and with hypocrisy turn around and accuse someone
else of credibility problems. "
Page 3
-- If an assessment is asked of the opposition, here are
suggested brief replies:
Ed Muskie: Has the lead. A very undistinguished record;
virtually untutored in foreign affairs; indecisive. Will come under
strong attack from his opponents and will be then under heavy
testing as a candidate. While seeking to convey trust, he is as divisive
if not more so than any other Dems.
George McGovern: A loyal Dem who sincerely believes in
his leftish views. Not a seri ous candidate and a stalking horse
for Kennedy.
Gene McCarthy: Is a spoiler. Will further divide the Dems.
Will probably run a fourth party because he thinks the party does not
listen to him.
Henry Jackson: One of the brightest of the Dems; loyal, etc.
Must do well in Florida where he is more in tune with them than
Muskie. Unfortunately the Dems have gone to the left and will not
nominate him -- too bad that the Dems no longer believe in strong
national defense.
Hubert Humphrey: Muskie's chief rival -- will announce
January 10. Strong organization in Florida. May upset Muskie.
Will challenge Muskie in Wisconsin. Has more financial backing.
John Lindsay: How can he govern the country when he can't
govern his city? Many of his municipal problems were self-created.
1/7/72
H.G. KLEIN -- Face the Nation -- Suggested Items
Obvious discussion will arise on the meries of the President's
opposition
in the campaign year. I suggest some
of the following points be made:
-- An effort should be made to exacerbate Democratic
differences. Gene McCarthy has severely criticized Ed Muskie
for his strong support of the Vietnam war in 1968. McGovern
has chamlenged Muskie to statewide debates in New Hampshire
and has attacked consistently that Muskie is not liberal
enough. Jackson thinks all the other Dems are too far on
a
the Left -- he strongly
opposes bussing and wants/stronger
military as well as being strong on law and order. Making
these points and others might help to bring to
the public eye the squabbling among the Dems.
-- An impression should be conveyed of the
Democrats
in total disarray -- a party who has no true leader and thus
has so many
presidential candidates as to make
their party's leadership seem ludicrous. Portray the Democratic
party as bankrupt of ideas as well as leadership; of not
saying anything positive, but only attacking the President;
of having not much vision but a great deal of partisanship.
If they can't run their party, how can they run their country ?
--- I would puff up Humphrey. You probably will be asked
who the White House thinks is the most likely Dem candidate.
Obviously, HHH would be our best opponent. He should be
page 2
praised as a great Dem party leadler -- one who has labored
in the vineyards. Offer the opinion that Humphrey is a
strong leader and would again be a strong opponent. T his
should obviously be done in way which doesn't amount to an
endorsement of HHH, but rather an observation that HHH is
much better than the rest and much stronger politically
than the press portrays him to be.
-- On the Anderson papers, the question will be raised
of credibility, and I think this ought to be turned right
around and thrown back at the Dems. E.g., Muskie and others
have been raising the questions of RN's credibility.
I would say: "Talk about credibility; Ed Muskie, Hubert
Humphhey and the other Democrats were silent when
Lyndon Johnson took us into war --- they relished in their
1
portrayas of Barry Goldwater as bomb-happy. Their
silence while Lyndon Johnson escalated the war is well known.
Yet now they are unanimous in their desire to cuta and run.
I would think that there is a
problems
problem of credibility
when
as
Vietnam
can
be
dealt
with
50
their
candidates change positions for such obvious political
purposes as the Democrats have done on Vietnam --
when
they
and with hypocridg
can do this with impunity and yet
its
turn abound and accuse
someone else of credibility
-
problems.
II
page 3
-- If an assessment is
asked of the opposition,
here
are suggested brief replies.
Ed Muskie: Has the lead. A very undistinguished record;
virtually untutored in foreign affairs; indecisive. Will come
under strong attack from his opponents and will be then under
heavy testing as a candidate. While seeking to convey trust,
he is as divisive if not more so than any other Dems.
George McGovern: A loyal Dem who sincerely believes in
his leftish views.
Not a serious candidate and a stalking
hor
se for Kennedy.
Gene McCarthy: Is a spoiler. Will further divide the
Dems. Will probably run a fourth party because he thinks
the party does not listen to him.
Henry Jackson: ONe of the brightest of the Dems;
boyal,
etc.
Must do
well in Florida where he is more
in tune with them than Muskie. Unfortunately the Dems have
gone to the left and will not nominate him -- too bad that
the Dems no longer believe in strong national defense.
Hubert Humphrey: Muskie's
chief rival --- will announce
January 10. Strong organization in Florida. May upset Muskie.
Will challenge Muskie in Wisconsin. Has more financial
backing.
John Lindsay: How can he govern the country when he
can't govern his city? Many of his municipal problems were
self-created.